The Daily Egyptian is published by the students of SIU at Carbondale. Except during vacations and exam weeks, The Daily Egyptian is published Monday through Friday during the fall and spring semesters and TWThF during the summer semester."

Equal Rights Movement comes up again

A controversial amendment addressing feminist issues needs ratification from three more states to become part of the Constitution. One of those three could be Illinois.

Thirty-five states, of the 38 needed, have already ratified the Equal Rights Amendment, leaving the ERA just three states short of passage. Illinois is one of the states with the power to change the Constitution, and could put women on equal footing with men for the selective service.

Since the Equal Rights Amendment was written in 1923, it has been introduced and reintroduced into Congress dozens of times to no avail, including again during the 107th Congress (2001-2002), but according to some of Illinois' elected leaders it "doesn't matter."

The ERA is facing the Illinois legislation for ratification with the same words written by Alice Paul, founder of the National Woman's Party, which faced Congress decades ago. At the time Paul wrote it, she said the ERA was the next step necessary after the 19th Amendment (Woman Suffrage) in guaranteeing "equal justice under law" to all citizens.

It took almost 50 years for the ERA to pass through Congress and be submitted to the states for ratification on March 22, 1972. An original deadline of seven years was extended by Congress to June 30, 1982. When this deadline expired, only 35 states had ratified the bill, three states short of the 38 states needed for the ERA to become part of the U.S. Constitution. Now, the bill has been brought before five of the 15 states left to ratify the bill - Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma and Virginia. If any three of these states passes the ERA, a change to the Constitution could be made.

It is a change desperately needed, according to Trisha Beltz, a senior in philosophy and women's studies from Carbondale.

"Fighting for equal rights is what many have been doing for centuries," Beltz said. "If it had not been done, I could not be legally employed or speak in public. Women have suffered enough oppression, and it's time for lack of opportunity to come to a long-needed halt."

Still, the ones who make the final decisions in our district are not nearly as passionate about the ERA as Beltz.

In fact, Rep. Mike Bost, R-Murphysboro, said the push for - and against - the ERA is no longer even a real argument.

"This has put a lot of people in argument when it isn't necessary because equal rights are already covered in the Constitution," Bost said. "It doesn't matter and I wish they could understand that."

Bost said the ERA was meant to be passed years ago. In fact, Bost said seven of the states that originally ratified it have appealed. He said it is unclear if those states would even still be considered part of the 38 needed for it to pass.

Sen. David Luechtefeld, R-Okawville, said that although there has not been a lot of talk going on in Springfield about the ERA, enough has been said to know there is speculation as to whether a ratification from Illinois would even count.

"There is some thought that it wouldn't work anyway," Luechtefeld said. "The whole process really needs to start over. Congress needs to propose it and then it needs to go back to the states."

Luechtefeld said there is some false understanding that passing the ERA would make women just as available as men for the draft.

"No one has to go," he said. "We have an all-volunteer army. If a draft was passed, it might make some difference, but without a draft in play, that theory doesn't make any sense."

Luechtefeld said there is a negative side to the ERA and he wanted to look deeper at whether there needs to be another law on the books for women's rights, or it they already have equal rights before he makes a decision.

Bost said instead of discussing the ERA, government leaders and constituents should be more concerned with a law that would give equal pay for equal work.

"I would vote no to the ERA, but it is not because I am opposed to women's rights," Bost said. "The right way to handle this would be legislation on equal pay. The ERA doesn't accomplish what we need it to."

Bost said many female members of the General Assembly don't even support the bill.

According to both Bost and Luechtefeld it is unclear when the ERA will come before them for a vote. In fact, Bost said it might not even be brought to that point at all.

"There are a lot of new 'freshmen' Democrats and this is a tough vote no matter how it falls," Bost said. "In the end, it won't mean anything anyway."

Reporter Kristina Herrndobler can be reached at kherrndobler@dailyegyptian.com